mikebike

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You don't research things very well do you.  Between 100k and 300k have defected from NK since 1953.  You don't have numbers like that unless things are really bad in a country.  Seems to be quite bad to live in NK.

Taking the higher number (300,000) that works out to about 5000people per year. About 0.02% annually.

Almost 10% (5.5-ish million) of UK citizens live abroad... by your logic can I say, "Seems to be quite bad to live in UK"?

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Where did I say the USA decides who rules Syria?  I never said that. Please quote me properly or don't quote me at all.

Seems reasonable to infer that is what you were implying when you posted:

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

...you are right, the more we allow the absurdity of Assad to continue, the more people will die.  Time to stop the insanity.  Sadly, Russia doesn't seem interested.

9 minutes ago, amvet said:

For JFK?

For OSWALD.

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

Free elections ?  if so how come so many against him. I told you before being voted in does not mean everything. This is good proof of my case. 

Really? Would you care to apply your "logic" to the current situation in the USA?

Don't do it. Cash or bank draft/cashier's cheque.

A quick call to any Thai truck tuner or racer will answer your question.

These guys are good: http://www.ecuthailand.com

On 10/7/2017 at 9:19 PM, boomerangutang said:

Those who lost loved ones at the LV massacre should sue the ATF and NRA for $570 million.  $10 million for each life lost (not counting the shooter).   Why? .....you may ask....

 

Because ATF and NRA enabled the massacre to happen.  They essentially enabled the shooter to get the guns and bump-stock upgrades to cause so much carnage in so few minutes.  They are co-conspirators or co-defendants, ....choose your term.   I would like to be among the team of lawyers who submit the class-action lawsuit - and not for the lawyers' fees.  I would do it 'pro-bono' in order to start on the track toward trying to safeguard Americans from future massacres.  We're never going to stop mass murders by guns, but we can at least try to lessen the carnage that ATF, NRA, Trump, and right wing politicians are enabling.

 

Note: of the hundreds of US Congresspeople that NRA pays to vote for more military weapons for civilians, nearly all are Republicans, and John McCain get the most.

 

 

Wouldn't it be simpler to overturn Citizen's United - take ALL money out of politics and let the representatives represent the people and not the mega-donors/corporations/lobbyists?

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

The Brits signed two treaties re; HK.  The second one, in late 19th century, was also signed by Chinese royals, which had the phrase 'IN PERPETUITY.'  It means; 'forever.'  It applied to all the territory south of Boundary Road (the road is still there, north of Kowloon).   If Marge Thatcher was a tougher player, the Brits could have held on to HK (not counting the New Territories) and HK would have democracy and free speech.

In perpetuity contracts are only enforceable in a stable political climate. The revolution and the 100 years of humiliation would have eviscerated any validity of a contract signed by "the royals" in the eyes of the CPC.

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

But colonies still exist.   If it makes you feel better, we can call them 'NEW colonial.'   Half the islands in the Caribbean, plus Canada, Australia, Tibet, Crimea, and a few others are still colonies.  If you ask me, I think colonialism would be a better way of governing for some countries.  For example:  Zimbabwe.   Look at what self-rule's got them.  I admit colonialism often manifested badly, but in some scenarios it brought good things:  post offices, judicial systems, democracy, railroads, police, fire departments, sewers, municipal water systems, good roads, employment/markets for home-grown goods, ..... 

Australia hasn't been a "colony" of England since 1901 and Canada hasn't been a "colony" of England since 1931... Not gonna look up the ones i don't know off hand,  but I'll wager a wad on "none of them are either".

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Well isn't that nice.  The Beijing puppets in HK aren't just throwing those guys in a dark dungeon to let them rot.  Freedom of speech doesn't exist in HK, but it's better there than on the mainland China.

 

I'm in a minority, but I wanted HK to stay British.  I knew without a doubt, all along, that HK controlled by Beijing would sink inexorably toward: no-free-speech, and nixing of other freedoms.

 

To those who say, "There was no other way.  HK had to be returned to China."  I say; not so. Britain is smaller than China, but if push came to shove, I think the Brits would have prevailed.  Look at the brief Argentina war ....or either of the two Opium Wars.   .....all 3 of which Britain won against larger foes, and far from home.

 

 

Sure! Fighting a colonial war in the late 20th century makes a load of sense - or a load of something! 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2017/10/10/to-deter-north-korea-japan-and-south-korea-should-go-nuclear/?utm_term=.a0334128149b

Singapore has a very pragmatic foreign policy. Bilahari Kausikan's 2017 book "Singapore is not an Island" is a very good primer.

31 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Ummm....last time I checked, HK was a part of china. LOL.

Yeah... kinda the same way Puerto Rico is part of the USA.

One side of the mouth threatens genocide in NK. The other side of the mouth admonishes Mynamar. Facepalm.

https://www.vipleague.ws/sports/american-football.html

Minor pop-ups... HD quality. I use it for NHL games as well.

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

And other Admin's have done a better job on civil right's?

Yes. Demonstrably.

14 minutes ago, binjalin said:

 

I have to agree it was very, very unwise but he's a megalomaniac so everything is about HIM! I still would prefer entertainers (which includes all sports) stick to what they are being paid to do. In their own time I fully support any activity they might seek to highlight and that includes, of course, using their fame but spare us during performances. Don't have the anthem is the obvious solution.

One more time for those who are unaware:

Prior to 2008-09 the players came on the field AFTER the playing of the national anthem. The Department of Defense PAID the NFL to change their Operations Manual to require the players to be on the field to boost their sign-up-to-fight efforts. The whole political controversy is a construct of DoD propaganda and a total misunderstanding of why Kaepernick started taking a knee (hint: it is NOT disrespect to the troops, the flag or the US in general).

22 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Who pointed it out?  it's part of the RULES  have some HONOUR when posting please.  No one pointed it out after that rant by the uninformed. I pointed it out.

3 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

 Pages A62-63 of the NFL League Rulebook

 

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Analysis: The NFL rulebook makes no mention of the national anthem. But the game operations manual does.

Nothing to do with honour, just facts.

4 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I beg your pardon? The NFL 'game operations handbook' contains the rules for this. The quote is from that manual.

 

APOLOGIZE immediately 

 

The Official NFL Rulebook which is different from the Game Operations Manual. The Rulebook handles the rules of the game. The Game Operations Manual handles how teams and players should conduct themselves.

 

You are a nasty, uniformed  ****** 

You called it the "Rulebook" until more informed posters pointed out it was the "Operations Manual". 

This section of the Operations manual was drafted circa 2008-2009 as a result of PAID sponsorship from the DoD to the NFL. Prior to this teams stayed in the dressing room until AFTER the national anthem was played.

On 10/9/2017 at 8:08 AM, Boon Mee said:

These multi-millionaire morons don't really know what they are 'protesting'

Unfortunately the moron(s) seem to be behind the keyboard, and like to pretend they don't know what is being protested.

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

A wee bit of research would have told them only that there was a public holiday the week of the cremation, not that the entire month was closed down.

I bet NONE of the hotels waived the requirement to stay for many days or higher room rates if any for the party. I also bet NONE of the hotels warned that the party was banned when taking bookings.

Who's the dumbass?

 

Given that this will be all over facebook and social media by now I expect that every place that caters for the youth set will be getting cancellations for all of October now. What young person will come if it means getting raided by the army for trying to enjoy themselves on "holiday"?

Won't be just Hat Rin either, as the crackdown is everywhere. Expect Khao San Rd to be short of customers too.

A wee bit of research would have told them how much the King was revered and a wee bit more would have revealed that October would be a sketchy month for Full Moon style partying.

You see it as someone else's responsibility to make sure your vaycay goes well. I see it as a personal responsibility. I'll stick with my dumbass assessment.

1 hour ago, londonthai said:

there were only foreigners, not thai. It was a private party in an open space.

Cancellation of full moon party came at the last few days, rather unexpected order. Many booked accommodation and air tickets months before. So they were duped

"Unexpected"? Huh?

"Many booked... months before". Well, a wee bit-o-research would have let them know a YEAR ago this was gonna happen.

Dumbasses.

31 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Mr MikeBike and his followers need to get a grip on reality- WWII is what led to both the partition of Korea as well as Germany- and ALL the permanent members of the current  United Nations had a hand in setting the peace at the end of WWII. That also includes the UK and France.  Shall we also blame Winston Churchill and Charles De Gaulle. You want to show your dislike for all things American -go ahead but at least get your facts and history correct instead of spewing nonsense on a very serious current issue simply because you don't like America.

Its really off topic but the world's former colonial powers mentioned were effectually powerless post WWII. No need to blame them.

11 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The facts on the creation of North Korea are much more than blaming the US for this.  All of Korea was under the control of Japan during WW2.  Therefore Korea was a part of the Axis. When Japan surrendered, the  Allied Powers to include the US, Soviet Union, UK and Republic of China (now Taiwan) agreed to a  temporary split of Korea at around the 38th Parallel. In 1948 the Us wanted to restore Korea to a united country under a democratic trusteeship and move to fair elections. The Soviet Union refused and thus the split became more permanent.

 

The Korean War started in 1950 when the North attacked the South and eventually the  Mainland Chinese intervened as North Korea was losing the war and the Americans and allies (Including UK, Turkey, Thailand and others) had pushed the all the way to the Yalu River separating NKorea from China. The armistice was eventually agreed after the demarcation line was adjusted back to the 38th Parallel. 

 

Any poster who believes that America is responsible for Korea the way it is now simply does not know the history or how it all went down. The Us has always wanted from the beginning to have a united Korea. If one wants to find ultimate fault- one can go back to the days of prior to World War 2 when the Japanese enslaved the Koreans and then the Soviet Union- who wanted to keep its portion Communist. Neither the Soviet Union nor Imperialist Japan now exist but the History is fact.

 

Fast Forward- to present- NKorea is still in a state of War with those nations under the United Nations Command who intervened after the North invaded the South.  What stopped the fighting was an armistice that still is in play right now. Let's stop the blame game -because it sure as hell wasn't the US that wanted a divided Korea nor did the US invade Korea.

So USA wanted a united Korea under democracy. USSR wanted a united Korea under communism. They both share blame for playing their stupid Cold War games through innocent proxies.

Nope. Still having the best times of my life! Love the nostalgic tunes, love the new tunes!

Just now, rijb said:

This survey is not a history test.  What is this obsession with trying to place the blame on previous generations?  They're dead!  

 

Let's focus on the live people.  Before they get dead, too.

Simple response to a poster who does not seem to understand history. Would it be better to let historical inaccuracies go unchecked? Lack of said understanding is a common cause of mistakes in current policy decisions.